Apple has until July 24 to modify its trademark application and resubmit.

Apple's application for the "iPad mini" trademark must be more descriptive if the US Patent and Trademark Office is going to approve it. A document from the USPTO surfaced online over the weekend, indicating that the office was unlikely to give Apple the trademark based on its initial description. Although some have interpreted the letter as an outright rejection, the USPTO's response offers Apple options for modifying its application—as long as it offers a disclaimer on "mini."

The USPTO's letter to Apple is dated January 24 but was only just made public. In it, the organization notes that while "iPad" is descriptive when applied to Apple's goods—the "i" because it's understood by the public to refer to the Internet, while "pad" is connected with tablet computers. "Mini," on the other hand, is the word that the USPTO takes issue with. Because "mini" is usually applied to something that's just smaller than usual, the USPTO considers the word "merely descriptive" and doesn't want to award Apple exclusive use as part of the trademark.

Because of the problem with "mini," the USPTO is hesitant to move forward since the trademark could easily be confused with Apple's other, existing trademark for "iPad." That said, Apple now has the option to amend its application to include a disclaimer on the word "mini" and to explain why it needs a separate trademark for "iPad mini" in addition to "iPad." Apple was given a six month deadline from the original letter to submit a modified application, meaning it now has until July 24 to rework it and resubmit.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

"... the "i" because it's understood by the public to refer to the Internet ..."

Well that's news to me.

I believe that it originally meant Internet -- with the iMac -- but lost it's meaning when the iPod came out and is more of a moniker now for some (most?) Apple products. I could be wrong though, if I am, I sure it will be pointed out multiple times in this thread.

This is probably to keep them from trying to throw the "mini" word around like they do with the "app store". Apple wouldn't want any other company to use the word "mini" for the name of their smaller device, claiming it's a trademarked word/description.

This is probably to keep them from trying to throw the "mini" word around like they do with the "app store". Apple wouldn't want any other company to use the word "mini" for the name of their smaller device, claiming it's a trademarked word/description.

Sounds a lot like a certain, overpriced, crappy cable company that sued anybody and anything that used their name regardless of usage.

"Because "mini" is usually applied to something that's just smaller than usual, the USPTO considers the word "merely descriptive" and doesn't want to award Apple exclusive use as part of the trademark."

If they grant this trademark then Apple will have exclusive use of the two-word term "iPad mini", but would that necessarily prevent others from using the word "mini" in other product names? Similarly, is the word "touch" off limits now, for example if I came out with a new gadget called "Spazmo Touch" would Apple have a case against me?

If they grant this trademark then Apple will have exclusive use of the two-word term "iPad mini", but would that necessarily prevent others from using the word "mini" in other product names? Similarly, is the word "touch" off limits now, for example if I came out with a new gadget called "Spazmo Touch" would Apple have a case against me?

If they grant this trademark then Apple will have exclusive use of the two-word term "iPad mini", but would that necessarily prevent others from using the word "mini" in other product names? Similarly, is the word "touch" off limits now, for example if I came out with a new gadget called "Spazmo Touch" would Apple have a case against me?

If it was a handheld electronic device I wouldn't be surprised considering they'll go after grocery stores with an image of an apple in their logo.

Personal definition of "I"? Even Steve Jobs when he introduced iMac gave multiple definitions and left the meaning open to the imagination. fLuOcLkLiOnLg!

The discussion of the definition of "pad" is equally stilted and contrived so as to also be f-LOL-able.

Spacing between name and button? I have no general axe to grind against govt regulation, but I wonder if the reviewer is now suggesting that there should be such a govt spec. Isn't having it on same screen prominent in size and color enough, and tbh, isn't that it is prominently on the apple site and in stores and, and, and...,

That the govt reviewer couldn't find better arguments indicates either there is a major problem with the review process and guidelines, or the reviewer is an incompetent bozo and should be fired. (And with the need for another loop, people should have little wonder why there is such a backlog in the USPTO.)

Edit: thanks for all the down votes from the USPTO trademark Examiner's Union Reps.!

Edit 2: (My hundredth post. Don't think I was ever on the negative side of votes before.). Lordy, all the down votes, but why? (Its not like I called the examiner a retard living under the stairs, although that was my first thought.)

I'm glad USPTO sometimes pays attention. Truthfully the ship on 'iWhatever' has sailed and it's a bit late to argue that decision.

However, I'd really prefer that we not see Apple taking BMW to court for violating their trade mark with the "Mini" line of cars for offering integrated tablet-like features ( like a dashboard GPS or MP3 player ).

Why the heck does Apple even need to have a separate trademark JUST for the iPad Mini? Isn't it enough just to lump all products under the "iPad" umbrella? I suppose that if they came out with an 11- or 12-inch version, they'd want to trademark "iPad Maxi" too?

And why is the Patent and Trademark Office even letting them resubmit the application? There can't POSSIBLY be any good justification for Apple to be granted a separate trademark just for including the word "Mini".

I'm glad USPTO sometimes pays attention. Truthfully the ship on 'iWhatever' has sailed and it's a bit late to argue that decision.

However, I'd really prefer that we not see Apple taking BMW to court for violating their trade mark with the "Mini" line of cars for offering integrated tablet-like features ( like a dashboard GPS or MP3 player ).

Well, I prefer the 'iWhatever' to the 'eWhatever' that it replaced. Now, I just need to figure out something good and internetty that starts with 'a' so I can get to trademarking...

I don't believe the "i for Internet" thing. Was the first iPod Internet connected or capable?

Yes, the "i" really is for Internet. The concept of the iMac was to sell a computer that could quickly and easily connect to the Internet right out of the box.

The concept of the iPod was a portable music player which played music downloaded from the Internet.

The concept of the iPhone was a mobile phone with a capable, usable Internet browser that ran web applications.

Edit from Wikipedia:

Quote:

Ken Segall was an employee at an L.A. ad agency handling Apple's account who came up with the name "iMac" and pitched it to Steve Jobs. Steve wanted the product to be called "MacMan", but eventually warmed to Ken's suggestion.[4] Ken says that the "i" stands for "Internet"[5], but also represents the product as a personal and revolutionary device('i' for "individuality" and "innovation").[6] Attention was given to the out-of-box experience: the user needed to go through only two steps to set up and connect to the Internet. "There's no step 3!" was the catch-phrase in a popular iMac commercial narrated by actor Jeff Goldblum.

If they grant this trademark then Apple will have exclusive use of the two-word term "iPad mini", but would that necessarily prevent others from using the word "mini" in other product names? Similarly, is the word "touch" off limits now, for example if I came out with a new gadget called "Spazmo Touch" would Apple have a case against me?

No. The mark would be "iPad mini" but there would still be M&M minis, Mini Cooper and other assorted "mini" things on the market. Now if you're in their space and you're pulling a Samsung in terms of copying design language, Apple's gonna throw everything at you. And they should.

Wait, there are people at the USPTO who actually review applications and read their contents before approving them? And, they actually reject things from time to time from big corporations?

Now that's news to me!

Abridged version of actual conversation with patent lawyer (still working at PTO, if anyone's wondering):

PTO cog: "So I let some dude from Texas patent the mathematical formula to determine the trajectory of a swing..."Another lawyer at our table: "Wait, what? You let him patent math? Why?"PTO cog: "Because I thought it would be funny."Me: "How are you not fired?"PTO cog: "What? It's not like it's going to stand up in court."Three other lawyers combined effort: "Yeah but it has already wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention all the time the lawyers have to bill researching park swings. Park swings. This is something nobody should give a crap about."PTO cog: "But it was funny."Me: "You are literally the worst Republican I have ever met, and I've met Rick Perry."

Being so agrresive doesn't always pay for Apple, here in Mexico a couple of weeks ago Apple lost the trademark battle for "iPhone" to a small company called "iFone" that never dreamed of going to court against Apple.

It was Apple who sued first, but it turned out that the "iFone" trademark dated from 2003 and Apple filed for "iPhone" in 2006 so they lost the case swiftly.

Most probably they will settle out of court, but right now, the small company pretty much has Apple by the balls in Mexico.

Honestly, it's kind of silly that they feel like they need a separate trademark anyway. The fact that iPad is already trademarked will protect them from anyone attempting to sell an iPad <anything>.

I guess it's just a case of "Trademark ALL the Things!"?

I think what's at issue here is not just that Apple wants trademark protection for "iPad mini", but that it wants to trademark the word "mini" in the context of tablets generally, thus making it illegal for other manufacturers to use the word on their tablets.

I think the USPTO is on the right track here. The word "mini" is not currently tied in the public mindset to Apple products only, nor should it be. It's too general a term. Granting them exclusive use of the word in their market would be like giving McDonald's a trademark for the word "big" just because it's part of the name "Big Mac".

Surely there's been some product that had some sort of different description to its name that was accepted before, such as "Jr." with the understanding that it wasn't the actual offspring of the "older" device.

Quote:

First on the line... the Samsung SIII Mini, for sure.

The problem with that phone is it's basically a capability equivalent of an S1, and normal sized, so neither name is telling the truth.